


Meta:  Genocide in the Earth-Minbari war?  A new and improved objective analysis.  Canonicity and the consequences of terminology.

by Ad Astra (Itur_Ad_Astra)



Category: Babylon 5, Babylon 5 & Related Fandoms, Babylon 5: Legend of the Rangers
Genre: "Poisoning the Well": the behavior of those without an argument., - also the uses and misuses of the term, Analysis of Canon, Analysis of canon terms, And their use out-of-universe, Character Analysis, Conceptual drift, Cultivation Theory, Dark, Earth-Minbari War, Fanwork Research & Reference Guides, Framing Theory, Gen, Genocide, Mass Communication, Meta, Minbari, Not think about them, Or their consequences, Trigger warning: History, Uncomfortable analyses, We just like to use the terms, by inevitability - we're discussing, is that a warning?
Language: English
Status: In-Progress
Published: 2019-03-18
Updated: 2019-04-13
Packaged: 2019-11-23 15:35:37
Rating: Teen And Up Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 3
Words: 9,103
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/18153740
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/Itur_Ad_Astra/pseuds/Ad%20Astra
Summary: Second only to scripture,novelsare the books that "change readers' lives".  Fiction matters.To not use "genocide" to describe genocide is inhumane and unconscionable.Leading genocide scholars also advise:"When genocide is used in a loose and irresponsible manner ... it diminishes the significance of and minimizes those actions that are truly genocidal in nature"-Dr. Totten, Genocide Studies and Prevention"rhetorical issues are of some importance because calling every abuse or crime a genocide makes it steadily more difficult to rouse people to action when a genuine genocide is taking place."- Dr. Ignatieff, Lemkin memorial lecture.This work examines the Earth-Minbari war of B5 canon,(as per JMS), in the context of international law & definitions by renowned genocide scholars.If the B5 E-M war fits any such definition, we have aresponsibilityto call it so.If-only if-it does not, then we should think about our use of the term, and if it'sworthrisking the trivialization that genocide scholars warn of.In memoriam: Anne R.





	1. Prologue part 1: Genocide: the power of a word.

#### An attempt to examine in-universe and out-of-universe use of the term "genocide" when describing the Earth-Minbari war, with respect to canonicity, and what, if any, are the consequences of this usage.

* * *

Or, put another way: Was there a genocide (successful or attempted) in the Earth-Minbari war?

Well, duh, one might say. Obvious _and_ old. This has been obvious for 25 years now, you know?

Well, it certainly is old enough that we have 25 years of repetition to supplant the need for our own assessment, but let's track this thread to the beginning and take a quick look for ourselves. Fannish _like_ , just to be clear, isn't a good enough reason to embark on this examination. What is at stake here, _is_.

Really? One probably exclaims with understandable incredulity. Why bother writing - or reading - such an examination at all? It is just a _word_ \- albeit a _specific_ one - being applied to events that are _fictional_ , after all. 

The answer is twofold, pertaining to **1)** the relevance of the word in question: "genocide", and **2)** the relevance of fiction, over and above its entertainment value.

Let's start with: **1)** the relevance of the word in question.

"Words have power". We might expect to hear this meant magically or mystically, but sociologists know it's entirely based in reality.

Individual words have power, and their arrangement every bit as much. What's the better warning: " smoking may lower life expectancy" or "smoking kills"? What disturbs us more as a result of a military operation: "we killed more civilians than enemy combatants" or "we had significant collateral damage in addition to destroying the target"? What are we more likely to vote to ban: "terminating an embryo" or "murdering a baby"?. Taking strong emotion out of it, which makes us more likely to buy a piece of clothing: "our garment is quality", or "wearing this _makes you_ beautiful/confident/desirable, etc".  
As is likely obvious, even for words not fraught with the emotional tension and political connotations of the "g-word", the influence of word choice and arrangement upon human opinions and decisions is a significant one. So much so, that analyzing the measurable effects has spawned entire subfields of Sociology and Mass-Communication, along the lines of research into what is known as "Cognitive Priming", and "Framing". Both fascinating fields - not so much, to me for their exploitability in insidiously influencing the individual - but rather, because such uses are already in place (and form the basis of product **and** campaign advertisement), as a means for individuals to recognize and understand the influence, so as to be thus enabled to be more true to themselves rather than the loudest source of cognitive priming in the room. An interesting exercise is to rephrase an issue with different levels of emotive terminology and watch the opinions of one's company -and self- shift with the words.

Moving from generalities to the specifics of the "g-word". 

Genocide is .... a word with meaning that is more substantial - more _terrible_ \- than the sum of its letters. To deny its use in the face of the actions that add up to it is, not only utterly inhumane but also, incomprehensibly disrespectful to its victims, trivializing their trauma by refusing to name the _ultimate crime_ that they have suffered. Such denial is also frequently a precursor to - or justification of - even more destructive and criminal behaviors.

On the other hand, to use the term incorrectly is a problem that is more than simply _academic_ in nature, and with greater consequences, socially, than something that can be relegated solely to the domain of semantic quibblers. 

For one thing, _perhaps_ , familiarity breeds contempt. When the world doesn't end for all the half dozen 'genocides' we've heard about in the last year- some of which may apply the term for the ultimate _crime_ to sheer dumb misfortune, the weather, or worse just use it as a critique of social trends - we might loose respect for the horror of the term, _and the suffering of its victims._

More certainly, there is a very real demonstrable danger of "Conceptual Drift". 

To give an example of conceptual drift, in the application of psychiatry (though it is not a problem endemic to just that one field), by slight generalizations and shifts to the psychological states classified as symptoms of a pathology, and these broadenings-of-scope being repeated across generations of researchers and academics, who in turn base their definitions on already inexact definitions (like round-off error in reverse), before long definitions of pathology emerge which cover normal states and experiences, and when this is extended to a diverse array of pathologies thus expanded, every single one of us would need to be _analyzed_ , at minimum, and possibly medicated, for being essentially normal.

Back on topic, _it is necessary to call the ultimate crime by its true name. But does that action of respect and commemoration mean **anything** if the name has been robbed of all meaning through conceptual drift?_

I realize that lengthy quotations are bad form, according to some people. I, however, am fully cognizant that I simply do not possess the expertise to address this very issue as it deserves to be addressed, and dramatically shortening the quotations risks distorting, in whole or in part the context and meaning of the original text, so without further ado:  
  


> Dr. Samuel Totten, chief co-editor of Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal warns: "Frivolous use of the term “genocide” is rampant in today’s world. Well-intentioned but ill-informed individuals and groups use the term to describe a wide array of social ills, “oppression of one form or another,” and/or any situation they cither feel passionate about or believe merits the use of a “dramatic” term.... _Frivolous use of the term is bound to lead many members of the public to become lazy and indiscriminate in making key distinctions between what Is and Is not truly genocide or genocidal. When genocide is used in a loose and irresponsible manner, not only does it distort the true meaning of the term, but it diminishes the significance of and minimizes those actions that are truly genocidal in nature._  
>  Misuse and overuse of the term may also contribute to inuring some people to the  
>  horror of the reality of genocide—one of the most egregious human rights violations known to humanity. [1]. Additional materials at: [2], [3]. Emphasis mine.

> Dr. A. D'Amato of the Northwestern University School of Law, USA, warns, in the Naval War College International Law Studies Blue Book:  
>  "The term “genocide” is popular with journalists because it seems to give an  
>  immediate and sensational dimension to their reports. Its overuse extends to academics  
>  who see no need to be careful about the terms they use... the term “genocide” can be stretched so far as to lose any distinctive or coherent meaning.  
>  “Genocide,” to have standing as a separate crime, must be distinguishable from  
>  group destruction. The framers of the Geneva Convention settled on a definition that  
>  appears to have singled out victims of genocide as involuntary members of a group.  
>  There is something universally felt to be _particularly heinous in murder based on a group affiliation that the victim could not have avoided...... To extend the crime of genocide to killings—even mass killings—that are not based on membership in the four groups is to cheapen the concept and eventually render it redundant."_ [4]. Additional materials therein. Emphasis mine.

> A. Destexhe, former Secretary General of Doctors without Borders, commenting on the tragic irony of the unwillingness of international authorities to react to or even _name_ the Rwanda genocide: "The term genocide has progressively lost its initial meaning and is becoming dangerously commonplace. In order to shock people and gain their attention to contemporary situations of violence or injustice by making comparisons with murder on the greatest scale known in this century, ‘genocide’ has been used as synonymous with massacre, oppression and repression, overlooking that what lies behind the image it evokes is the attempted annihilation of the entire Jewish race....  
>  The inevitable consequences of such misuse of language are a _loss of meaning and a distortion of values_.... we arrive at a situation where no individuals are to be singled out as guilty or responsible because blame is laid at the door of historical fate and ‘unfortunate circumstances’, ‘the climate of the time’ and sheer bad luck....  
>  It is certainly true that _all victims, without distinction, merit compassion and assistance. They all have the right to justice and to know that their suffering will not be forgotten...... it nonetheless remains essential to distinguish between different sorts of tragedy_.... The greatest danger today arises from the re-birth of racist ideologies that consider it ‘logical’ to classify different races and ethnic groups, excluding and rejecting ‘the other’, even when such classification leads to policies that advocate wholesale slaughter on the basis of birth, religion or culture.....  
>  Almost everywhere in the world we see recurring _hatred of ‘the other’_ , leading to ethnic cleansing and racism: it is the greatest danger that we face today. And it is precisely this _selective killing of ‘the other’, who is identified, targeted and slaughtered as such, that is at the root of a genocide._ " [5]. Additional materials therein. Emphasis mine.

> Dr. J. E. Waller, Holocaust and Genocide Studies professor at Keene State College and Director of Academic Programs with the Auschwitz Institute for Peace and Reconciliation (AIPR) writes, discussing the legacy of Raphael Lemkin (legal scholar/Holocaust survivor/father of the UN Genocide convention), and how that legacy has been tragically twisted by irresponsible use:  
>  " Lemkin’s legacy reminds us that _words matter; names matter; labels matter_.....  
>  The word Lemkin coined—and the act to which he devoted his adult life to defining it as an international crime—quickly acquired considerable weight. It was a weight that international political leaders were unwilling to pick up for fear of being compelled to act. For activists and politicians intent on responding to mass murder, it was a weight frequently swung as a cudgel of moral judgment or political one-upmanship. As Ignatieff said: “ _Those who should use the word ‘genocide’ never let it slip their mouths, and those who do use the word ‘genocide’ banalize it_ into a validation of every kind of victimhood” (Ignatieff 2001, 7). “ _What remains is not a moral universal which binds us all together, but a loose slogan which drives us apart_ ” (Ignatieff 1998, 2). [6]. Additional materials therein. Emphasis mine.

> And finally, the internationally esteemed Canadian professor, historian, journalist and genocide scholar Michael Ignatieff, eduated at Cambrige and Oxford, and recipient of five honorary degrees, speaking of the legacy left by Raphael Lemkin, warned, in addition: "Now all of these achievements of Raphael Lemkin would be enough for us to celebrate him, but we need to remember the harsher reality that he died alone and forgotten. The word he coined _“genocide,” is now so banalized, so misused, so tossed-around, that it has lost all definition_.....There’s a serious risk that commemoration of Raphael Lemkin’s work will not become an act of remembering, but an act of _forgetting, obliterating_ what was so singular about his achievement..... Genocide, as a word, turns on a genocidal intention. “Genocide” has no meaning whatever unless the word can be connected to a clear intention to exterminate a human group, in whole or in part.....All _these rhetorical issues are of some importance because calling every abuse or crime a genocide makes it steadily more difficult to rouse people to action when a genuine genocide is taking place._ " [7] Emphasis the speaker's.

In recent years we have all heard the "g-word" used popularly to rail against the 'evils' and 'conspiracies' of inter-race marriages, LGBT rights, abortion rights, _as well as_ discriminations of every stripe, violence of every kind and extent, failures of drug-prevention agencies, and even natural disasters, among many other diametrically opposed concepts, thus robbing the term of much of its meaning. I can provide sources on demand, though such uses are so commonplace, I doubt anyone would need them.

In particular - and I hate to get political but I'm still quaking over this one - when the term has been distorted so much that just a couple days ago, 49 perfectly innocent people were _murdered_ in new Zealand by a bigot who justified his crimes by calling legal non-violent voluntary naturalization, cultural exchange, and people falling in love with people of other races and having kids with them, a "genocide of the White race", and then went on to say that since it's a "genocide", drastic action- aka mass-murder - "has to be taken" ... it might be a sign that we need to stop and take a long hard look at how far a concept that has so much sway can be _allowed_ to drift, before a word that should be a _warning_ of our worst nature turns into a _justification_ for giving into it wholeheartedly.

Now, this is _not_ to say that a situation that does not fit the term genocide used for it, cannot be a crisis, a tragedy, rampant discrimination, an unacceptable breach of duty, an atrocity, even a crime-against-humanity, etc - _and it is not to say that it is, as the above list is morally irreconcilable, and when used by bigots to justify crimes, extreme caution is necessary_. Nor is it to say that our sense of humanity and capacity for empathy is so deficient that any legitimately horrific or tragic situation is irrelevant if it is not a genocide.

This is, also, not saying that it is productive for those who would advocate for the victims of crimes-against-humanity, or the latter themselves, to sit and argue over whether their particular tragedy classifies as more of a genocide than another group's tragedy. Such practices frequently cause more harm than good as very human hurts and the scars of tragedy, personal or inherited, take over, together with the agony of feeling like one's tragedy is somehow insufficient -- and division and bitterness is the result rather than solidarity and healing. Similarly, such considerations are fraught with enough difficulty - and the potential for trivializing the severe trauma of some group's historical experience, or denying reparations for incomprehensible crimes on mere technicalities - that Israel Charny, renowned genocide scholar and founder of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, has proposed putting forth an expanded definition of genocide, with several sub-categories and related crimes that may more adequately cover the enormous variety of human suffering and tragedy that scars the memory of an incredibly diverse range of human beings. (This will be one of the three definitions we will look at in Ch. 3)

On the contrary. My apolitical (and non-expert) take on this is that _where_ the line between genocide and a particular atrocity by a group against the involuntary "other", is so fine (as to necessitate such lengthy arguments, or the trauma of the survivors is so deep as to create such a minefield, or the population viability has been drastically impacted) - we might as well just say it was _effectively genocide_ , and rather than quibble over the legalese, focus on how we can help the survivors heal - to the greatest extent that healing is possible - and on remembering such tragedies and atrocities as lessons, so that hopefully, as the collective of humanity, we do not repeat the same mistakes so readily.

 

Mostly, my concern, on the particular topic of this discussion, is with the potential application of the term to situations that are not certain to reflect the level of atrocity and depth of trauma of genocide - effective, legal, or even partial (as will be laid down in the coming chapter on definitions).

In particular, in the B5 universe, the human species is, canonically, not only effectively recovered but _thriving_ , and self-confident as ever, a mere ten years after experiencing "genocide" perpetrated against it. We do see some cases of comparatively-mild military PTSD, but as a whole there is a lack of the overarching sense of despair, degradation, trauma, and crippling legacy of victimization, that are just a few issues haunting survivors of genocide, not just decades but _generations_ after the fact. 

And there is a potential quibble with levels of violence as measured by the ratio of casualties to _available_ potential casualties, and whether such levels of violence even approximate the incomparable violence of something approaching genocide.

> In particular, to quote Dr. MacDonald, Senior Lecturer of the Political Studies Department, University of Otago, Canada: " Not concerning oneself with death tolls and degrees of horror removes the significance of the Holocaust entirely. How can the authors posit that “the same ends” have been achieved when six million of one people have been mercilessly slaughtered without a similar end result for the other group? The quote demonstrates a marked ignorance of Nazi goals. These were... to exterminate Europe’s entire Jewish population." [9]
> 
> A/N: please note my use of _ratio_ and _available_ in comparing casualty counts. The would-be multiple-murderer who ends up killing no-one because he _lost access_ to his roomful of 100 intended victims is _worse, ethically_ , than the single-murderer who has access to all 100 but selectively kills his sole target. And a race consisting of just 100 members is a lot more viability-impaired by the murder of 85 than a race of a million is by the murder of 850. The intentional perpetrator of the former, whatever their justification, is _willing_ to cause an effective genocide (in the biological sense, so if they go ahead with it, it's even more monstrous than mass-killing already is.

  
Regarding the non-numerical long term effects, granted, the external perception of trauma is, indeed, an _unacceptable_ substitute for the experience of the sufferer (indeed, people who have survived torture, frequently cannot survive the isolation formed by the fact that the gap of experience between survivor and support-group cannot be fully bridged by intellectual understanding), however, the lack of such overt effects being shown in canon _necessitates_ caution, largely because of a phenomenon known as "Cultivation Theory" which we'll get to properly in chapter 3.

In particular, as matters stand, for the purposes of this discourse, there are two possibilities: Either **a:** the term genocide (under _at least one_ of: legal, effective, or even partial definitions - to be laid out in Ch 5) does apply to the canonically established events of the B5 E-M war, or **b:** it does not under _any_ of the three definitions.

If it's **a** , then we can be said to have a _responsibility_ to use the term, _and_ to have the awareness that a good deal of unavoidable severe trauma has to be considered when we think about what must be going on off-screen among the survivors.

If, on the other hand, it's **b** , then the sparse canonical use becomes problematic (to see why, we need to consider chs. 2-4 as well), and propagating the use, especially out of universe - as real world people communicating in the real world - is doubly problematic, _specifically_ because of the dual issues of genocide _trivialization_ , as we have discussed above, intersected with "Cultivation Theory", a field that is, in the wake of certain television developments, anything but a _theory_.

Finally, there is quite literally no good reason not to clinically and rationally dissect the facts of the E-M war, and compare them to the facts of genocide. There is, after all, nobody to offend (specific to a fictional war that is not even set in historical fiction) that a reader might understandably identify with. There are no real-life survivors or descendants of survivors of the fictional Earth-Minbari war who might be told that their trauma is insufficient, and thus be further isolated and traumatized. 

We might feel some personal discomfort, sure. For reasons that will become apparent over the course of this discussion, I am _certain_ that the real-world survivors of genocide will have been more concerned with the use of the term than the analysis I posit. But for those of us (the majority, I expect) falling outside the experience of such trauma, here's the really interesting bit:

It has been argued between myself and a fellow AO3 member, that my insistence on _examining_ the usage of the term "genocide" for this particular fictional event, and my stance that _if the term does not fit, it should not be used (though, of course, if it does, it must be)_ , - even in daring to _ask_ the question - strays uncomfortably close to the real-world unethical and incredibly harmful practice of genocide denial (a practice, I might add, of denying the term "genocide" to events that pretty much always _do_ fall under at least one of the three definitions of genocide, as we will explore them in ch. 5). 

This argument, however _presupposes that there is a linkage of behavior and/or perceptions between fiction and reality_ (an observation that actually has merits, and indeed forms the basis of Cultivation Theory). 

If we _are_ to presuppose a behavioral/perceptual linkage between fiction and reality - and as we will examine in chs. 2-4, evidence holds that we should - then all the previous dangers of genocide _trivialization_ as discussed in the real world become relevant to _fiction_ as well, making precision in examining the appropriateness of the term to the events of the B5 E-M war, even more necessary.  
  


* * *

_In the next chapter: "Cultivation Theory", AKA: Does fiction matter?_.

**Notes for the Chapter:**

> References for Ch. 1:
> 
> 1: Encyclopedia of Genocide. (2000)  
> Compilation work from over 100 experts. I. Charny (Ed. )  
> ISBN: 0874369282  
> Also avail on Google Books here: https://books.google.com/books?id=8Q30HcvCVuIC
> 
> 2: Porter, Jack, Nusan (1982). Introduction.  
> In Porter, Jack, Nusan (Ed.). Genocide and Human Rights: A Global Anthology,  
> ISBN: 0819122904  
> Also avail on Google Books here: https://books.google.com/books?id=50YlAQAAIAA
> 
> 3: Totten, Samuel (1998): Defining genocide: Words do matter.  
> In Danks, Carol, and Leatrice Rabinsky (Eds.). Teaching for a Tolerant World: Essays and Resources. Urbana. IL: National Council of Teachers of English. pp. 141-151.  
> ISBN: 0814142966
> 
> 4: D’Amato (2010): On Genocide  
> In International Law Across the Spectrum of Conflict: Essays in Honour of Professor L.C. Green on the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday, Naval War College International Law Studies "Blue Book", Vol. 75, pp.119-130.
> 
> Also: D'Amato, Anthony, "On Genocide" (2010). Faculty Working Papers. Paper 93.
> 
> 5: Al. Destexhe (1995): Rwanda and Genocide in the Twentieth Century, Pluto Press  
> ISBN: 0814718736  
> Also Avail. on Google Books here: https://books.google.com/books?id=BJpUbx8uzI4C
> 
> 6: J.E Waller (2016): "A Crime without a Name": Defining Genocide and Mass Atrocity.  
> In: Economic Aspects of Genocides, Other Mass Atrocities, and Their Prevention, Oxford University Press, ISBN: 0199378290  
> Also here: https://books.google.com/books?id=4KdHDAAAQBAJ
> 
> 7: https://www.ushmm.org/confront-genocide/speakers-and-events/all-speakers-and-events/the-legacy-of-raphael-lemkin
> 
> 8: https://www.npr.org/2019/03/15/703715807/attack-in-new-zealand-appears-to-be-motivated-by-white-supremacy  
> and:  
> https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/3/16/18268856/new-zealand-shooter-white-nationalism-united-states
> 
> 9: MacDonald (2007): First Nations, Residential Schools, and the Americanization of the Holocaust. In Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique 40:4 (December/decembre 2007) 995-1015


	2. Prologue part 2: Does Fiction matter?  A very brief examination of fiction in written media, and its effects.

#### "Cultivation Theory", AKA: Does fiction matter?

  


#### 1/3: A very brief examination on textual works of fiction.

  


* * *

  


> "Does Fiction Matter?  
>    
>  _Simple question, right? Does fiction matter?_
> 
> _As a novelist, I’m supposed to say yes. I have to say yes. But. I hate when someone says I have to do something._
> 
> _So fiction doesn’t matter. It doesn’t. It shouldn’t._
> 
> _It’s not real. It’s all made up. It’s just the imagined, make-believe ramblings of people whose only real qualification is access to a pencil. Indeed, by definition, fictional stories are, in the words of my sister, “total BS.” They never really happened – and therefore should have no impact on our everyday existence._
> 
> _But then I keep thinking: Why do we ban books?_
> 
> _Fiction’s just nonsense, right? It’s inconsequential. Just made up._
> 
> _So. Why do we ban books?_
> 
> _Let me tell you why._
> 
> _Because books are powerful. Stories are powerful. They’re recipes made of hopes and dreams and fears. Stories transport us to new places, and show us things we could never see, and reveal the darkest parts of our souls._
> 
> _Stories educate us, terrify us, and even protect us._
> 
> _Jay Gatsby was the one who warned us of the dangers of our own excesses during the 1920s. Superman swooped to the rescue and gave America hope during the terrifying early days of World War II. Scout and Atticus showed us our racism, but also showed us the people who we aspire to be – who we want to be – and who we can be...._
> 
> _And that’s why books get banned. That’s why they ban Maya Angelou and Judy Blume and Mark Twain. Because stories change us._
> 
> _In Huckleberry Finn, people thought they were getting the story about a boy. Instead, Mark Twain gave them a manifesto. A challenge. An uncompromising fistfight about injustice and slavery. People thought they were getting a book. But Mark Twain knew that if you really want to teach people something, you need to tell them a story._
> 
> _The best part is, it’s nothing new. Fables have taught morality since the very story was told by the very first storyteller._
> 
> _Fiction is how we share – and not just how we share our dreams – it’s how we share ourselves. And perhaps more important, how we connect._
> 
> _When Alexander McCall Smith, a fiction writer, was faced with vocal readers who disagreed with what he’d done to the imaginary characters in his book, he became all too aware that “the world of fiction and the world of real flesh-and-blood people are not quite as separate as one might imagine. Writing is a moral act: What you write has a real effect on others, often to a rather surprising extent.”_
> 
> _.... My fellow mystery writer P.D. James points out, something as simple as the good guy catching the bad guy at the end of the story is exactly why the traditional detective story “confirms our belief, despite some evidence to the contrary, that we live in a rational, comprehensible, and moral universe.”_
> 
> _I know, I know – that sounds overblown. Too philosophical._
> 
> _So let’s just cut to the facts: According to the Library of Congress, after the Bible, y’know what’s cited as the number one book that’s made a difference in people’s lives? To Kill A Mockingbird._
> 
> _Read that again. Number 1: the Bible. Number 2: To Kill A Mockingbird.  
>  ...  
>  This is where Atticus says, “I rest my case.” But for the stubborn few who still think fiction doesn’t matter, I want you to imagine a world without it. A world without Romeo and Juliet, Don Quioxte, or Ebenezar Scrooge…Sherlock Holmes, Captain Ahab, or Dr. Frankenstein…" _\- Brad Meltzer, Author [1]__

__  
__

* * *

  
The precise ordering and theme of the fiction that influences our lives shifts around, but the fact that it does remains unchanged.

In 1991, the Library of Congress polled Americans asking them to name their first choice of "a book that had made a _difference in their lives _". The results?__

 _Again fiction came in second only to scripture_. A smattering of more fiction jostled with self-help books to fill the middle of the spectrum, along with one more religious work. Literature on political and social-activism came in tied for _last_ place. [2]

That's right. According to the public, _fiction 'changes our lives' more than real-life literature on the struggle for gender equality_ (The Feminine Mystique), _or the struggle of Holocaust survivors for a normal life_ (Man's Search for Meaning).

> "Here is the survey's list of the most influential books:  
>  1\. The Bible.  
>  2\. "Atlas Shrugged," by Ayn Rand.  
>  3\. "The Road Less Traveled," by M. Scott Peck.  
>  4\. "To Kill a Mockingbird," by Harper Lee.  
>  5\. "The Lord of the Rings," by J. R. R. Tolkien.  
>  6\. "Gone With the Wind," by Margaret Mitchell.  
>  7\. "How to Win Friends and Influence People," by Dale Carnegie.  
>  8\. The Book of Mormon.  
>  9\. (tied, in alphabetical order by title) "The Feminine Mystique," by Betty Friedan.  
>  "A Gift From the Sea," by Anne Morrow Lindbergh.  
>  "Man's Search for Meaning," by Viktor Frankl.  
>  "Passages," by Gail Sheehy.  
>  "When Bad Things Happen to Good People," by Harold S. Kushner"  
>  \-- Source: [2]  
> 

The ongoing digital exhibit of "Books that Shaped America", drawn in large part from user submitted data, available [here](http://read.gov/btsa.html), has 48 works of fiction, 13 works on civil rights/social justice/etc, 10 on history, 6 of poetry, 5 popular/science/educational, 5 self-help, 4 religious, 4 domestic advice, and 7 misc.

In other words, just off the numbers, fiction has _twelve_ times the influence on us that religion (the thing that's supposed to teach us morality) does, almost five times the influence that history (wherein humanity ought learn from our errors) does, almost ten times the influence that popular science (which ought at least impart the value of analytical thought or satisfy our innate curiosity) does, and almost _four times the influence that works on social justice/inequality/etc (the works that raise awareness and develop our humanity) have on us._ [3]  


* * *

  
So yes, _fiction does matter_. By sheer virtue of numbers, if this were an election, fiction would govern. As the genre of other people's words and thoughts that numerically outweighs any other literary influence on us, by a factor of several, it may well govern some portion of our mental worldview, and numbers are not the only thing that fiction has to its advantage:

> _"Research in psychology and broad-based literary analysis ... consistently shows that fiction does mold us. The more deeply we are cast under a story’s spell, the more potent its influence. In fact, fiction seems to be more effective at changing beliefs than nonfiction, which is designed to persuade through argument and evidence. Studies show that when we read nonfiction, we read with our shields up. We are critical and skeptical. But when we are absorbed in a story, we drop our intellectual guard. We are moved emotionally, and this seems to make us rubbery and easy to shape._
> 
> _...it’s clear that these stories really can change our views. As the psychologist Raymond Mar writes, “Researchers have repeatedly found that reader attitudes shift to become more congruent with the ideas expressed in a [fictional] narrative.”...._
> 
> _History, too, reveals fiction’s ability to change our values at the societal level, for better and worse. For example, Harriet Beecher Stowe’s “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” helped bring about the Civil War by convincing huge numbers of Americans that blacks are people, and that enslaving them is a mortal sin. On the other hand, the 1915 film “The Birth of a Nation” inflamed racist sentiments and helped resurrect an all but defunct KKK. "_ \-- Dr. Jonathan Gottschall, author of “The Storytelling Animal: How Stories Make Us Human.” [4]

The precise extent of this influence is beyond the scope of this essay, and beyond any easy cut-and-dry answers, as is the question of whether or not this is a 'good thing'.

In any case, the questions we ask ourselves may well be more valuable than answers that someone else provides us. I have an opinion that is as perpetually informed as I can make it and will state it as such, but I'm not here to preach. I hope to encourage people to think for themselves, challenge for themselves the preconceptions that are too-often swallowed whole, and go make _their own informed opinions._

The present Library of Congress listing is not sorted by popularity, but the 1991 survey was. When Americans, as a population, place "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand (who held that the _greatest virtue is selfishness_ ) two popularity places above Harper Lee's anti-racist "To Kill a Mockingbird", what does it mean for us?  


      
For those not familiar with Ayn Rand as philosopher, her ideas center   
around the pursuit of money and monetary power for the self and one's own  
(as a benefit to self) defined as moral necessity. Charity to those who do  
not fall into this category is not only stupid, in her mind, it is _a betrayal_  
of self and thus society. Though subtle, this current is threaded through her  
fiction, which may well be a better delivery mechanism for her ideas then her  
political/philosophical treatises, not only based on research on the matter  
(eg ref. #4), but also the simple fact that it is mostly her novels that are  
distributed freely and massively to classrooms in the US by the Ayn Rand  
Institute, which is dedicated to promoting her philosophy.  


While racism and bigotry is on the upswing in America (and not only), most who rail against providing medical care to the disabled/seniors/refugees rarely justify it by claiming that these 'others' suffer from 'racial/genetic inferiority'. Instead they talk about these 'others' as a financial burden on us, our future, and 'our own', tacitly encouraging selfishness over humanity and empathy.

Is there some connection then, one might ask, between the fiction we consume and the currents of selfishness and racism growing in our societies?  


* * *

  
__

_In the next chapter: "Cultivation Theory", AKA: Does fiction matter?:_

_2/3: A more proper examination of fiction in/on audiovisual media, and its effects._

. 

**Notes for the Chapter:**

> References for Ch. 2:
> 
> 1: https://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/20/books/book-notes-059091.html
> 
> 2: http://bradmeltzer.com/TV-Kids-and-More/913/does-fiction-matter
> 
> 3: http://read.gov/btsa.html
> 
> 4: https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2012/04/28/why-fiction-good-for-you-how-fiction-changes-your-world/nubDy1P3viDj2PuwGwb3KO/story.html
> 
>  
> 
> A/N: To the individual smearing me with utterly baseless slander and a "Do Not Engage"over on DW, without giving a single logical argument in the process (a dishonest arguing practice known as "poisoning the Well", whereby potential readers are _manipulated_ into having a negative predisposition rather than an open mind), what are you so afraid of that you feel the need to resort to such base tactics? 
> 
> You're a smart author. I'm sure you can do better.


	3. Prologue part 3: Does Fiction matter?  :  A deeper examination on fiction in/on audiovisual media, and its effects

#### "Cultivation Theory", AKA: Does fiction matter?

  


#### 2/3: A deeper examination on fiction in/on audiovisual media, and its effects.

  


* * *

  
Moving on from the consideration of textual works of fiction to the audiovisual, one might expect a greater potential influence coming from the latter. Time is part of it as most people spend more time, these days, watching TV than they do reading books, and as the old saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words, to say nothing of the power of audio input in directly pulling people's heartstrings, or how a terrified scream onscreen sets the viewer's heart racing. 

 

Fannish works, like soundtracks, evoke - and influence - the memories and ideas of the fictional universe they tie into. Thus, over free-standing literary works, they have a reach that connects to something bigger, and this something is the world of audiovisual fiction.

 

One might argue, perhaps, that since fictional events are just that, any comparisons to real-world events and concepts are a "false equivalence" - and _therefore_ that my concern for how we use such powerful terminology in fiction is misplaced, if not stupid or even odious. 

 

On the other hand, anyone who read the previous chapter might doubt that no caution is merited. 

The Ayn Rand foundations dedicated to spreading her ideas perform this task largely by disseminating her fiction, rather than her political and philosophical treatises, and the racist "Birth of a Nation" film of 1915 breathed more life into the US white-supremacist movements of the time than any political speech in their favor. 

Make of that what you will. 

Seriously, don't take my word alone. 

If you find this fascinating, feel free to do your own research, draw your own conclusions, without regard for if they are comfortable or not. Everything I say here is, to the best of my knowledge, both true and based on research pulled from across the spectrum. It is also a small drop in an ocean of knowledge that is out there for the exploration, a primer if you will for your own explorations. 

In what some call a 'post-fact world' where our lives are saturated with fiction, understanding how a work that necessarily has no constraints on fair representation or realism - and connects to one's emotions and instincts rather than their human rationality - can seep, subtle and insidious through lowered defenses and turned-off skepticism, into one's mind and shape their views, may well be the greatest gift one can give oneself and one's children (of body or of mind). 

 

In any case, there is no argument in my mind that in the most literal sense, the observation of a "false equivalence" is a correct one. The problem is that despite the literal false equivalence, and even when we are cognizant of it , facts mingle with fiction (weighted in direct proportion to the relative amounts coming in) when our brains form the generalizations we call learning. 

 

Case in point, even the fan who correctly pointed out to me that "any possible comparisons of fiction to real-life events or wars or atrocities are a false equivalence from the get-go", almost immediately after told me that my insistence on _examining_ the appropriateness of the term "genocide" for the _utterly fictional (ie, not even historical-fiction)_ Earth-Minbari war of B5, ( _at least if a negative conclusion was reached, even in all intellectual honesty_ , and even with a clear line of reasoning any reader can dissect to their heart's contentment)  "strays too close to the real life behavior of denying genocide. And that's an extreme uncomfortableness issue for me. It's also illegal where I live."

 

Now, when an intelligent, mature, worldly, and literate individual - who moreover knows fiction is just that - feels extremely _uncomfortable_ examining the terminology of purely fictional events that aren't even set in a historical period, _so much so_ as to point out the illegality of the utterly inhumane behavior of real-world genocide denial as an argument against terminological examination of fiction, _so much so_ as to later condemn said examination of fiction by conflating it with the denial (rather than examination) of fact, that should be a clear sign right there that yes, fiction does seep into and mold our perceptions of reality [[A/N on my DW](https://ituradastra.dreamwidth.org/912.html)].  
  


> A better example of this may indeed be taken from the trial of Socrates of Athens, who in Cicero's words "brought philosophy down from the skies.". We probably know Socrates as a philosopher credited with being one of the founders of Western philosophy and the first moral philosopher [1], the inventor of dialectic reasoning and the ethical tradition of thought [2], a man whose wisdom reached East as far as it did West, and was an immeasurable part "the purest water in the midday heat"[3] of the comparatively humanist, pluralist, scientific and intellectual Islamic Golden age of the Abbasid era [4][5], a scholar of which, Ibn Rushd, was in turn the “founding father of secular thought in Western Europe.”[5], largely though the Moore influence in Spain. 
> 
> Or we may know none of these and turn to a quick internet lookup to find why this philosopher is still is relevant to us today [3][6].
> 
> To the Athenians among whom he lived, Socrates was a philosopher, a permanent fixture of the agora that was the heart of Athenian culture, a distinguished veteran who had risked life-and-limb to get others off the battlefield, a conscientious objector in the face of certain death to the horrifically violent tyranny of the Spartan-imposed junta known as the "Thirty", a philosopher and a teacher known for analyzing everything, and saying that the only thing he knew was that he knew nothing - hence the need to examine _everything_. A man who never claimed to have any answers but helped his conversation partners find their own through rigorous logical dissection of every point. [6]
> 
> He was also, to the fans of the comic playwright Aristophanes who lived at the same time, (as portrayed in Aristophanes' extant "Clouds"), a lowlife swindler who used his powers of eloquence to win lawsuits unjustly, denied the existence of the accepted deities of the time _"Are you mad? There is no Zeus."_ [7] and replaced them with deified meteorological phenomena _"Henceforward, following our example, you will recognize no other gods but Chaos, the Clouds and the Tongue"_ [7], under whose morality-inverting tutelage, a selfish but otherwise harmless youth is metamorphosed into a gleeful lawbreaker who savagely beats his aged father (for disapproving of his newly acquired incestuous/rapist taste in poetry), is proud of it, and furthermore promises to do the same to his mother as well _"why should not I too have the right to establish for the future a new law, allowing children to beat their fathers in turn? ... I shall beat my mother just as I have you. "_ [7].
> 
> Now, none of these things were true of the real-world Socrates, who I'd recommend a reading of his fascinating early dialogues to understand (later dialogues were more Platonic than Socratic). 
> 
> He'd never been in a lawsuit before being put on trial for his life at the age of 70. While friendly to pluralist thinking, and open to the natural sciences, he was not a scientist himself such as the famed Anaxagoras, and never denied the existence of any of the deities of his time and culture (though he certainly added an extra guiding spirit of sorts under the stewardship of Apollo and was eminently flexible in considering variable belief-systems, but that was not a crime, as per the syncretism of his times)[6], and he was eminently supportive of the sanctity of filial piety. In Euthyphro, for example, he convinces a son not to bring charges against his father for the negligent homicide of a laborer (who'd killed a family slave in a drunken quarrel) because it was "impious" for a son to harm his father.[8] 
> 
> The accusations stayed unanswered, being in the domain of fiction that seeped into the Athenian psyche. Years later, these fictions came back to haunt Socrates at his trial brought for charges of impiety and corrupting the youth, the very charges that the playwright Aristophanes had leveled against him in comedy years earlier. Even Aristophanes's depiction of Socrates as a diabolically clever con-artist whose eloquence was a public hazard to engage with had made it to the trial[9], poisoning the well, as the saying goes, before the philosopher ever had a chance to speak in his own defense.  
>    
> 
>
>> **"** And first, I have to reply to the older charges and to my first accusers, and then I will go to the later ones... I am more afraid of them ... who began when you were children, and took possession of your minds with their falsehoods, telling of one Socrates, a wise man, who speculated about the heaven above, and searched into the earth beneath, and made the worse appear the better cause. These are the accusers whom I dread... their charges against me are of ancient date, and they made them in days when you were impressible - in childhood, or perhaps in youth - _and the cause when heard went by default, for there was none to answer_. And, hardest of all, their names I do not know and cannot tell; unless in the chance of a _comic poet_ [Aristophanes]... all these, I say, are most difficult to deal with; for I cannot have them up here, and examine them, and _therefore I must simply fight with shadows in my own defense, and examine when there is no one who answers_.....
>> 
>> What do the slanderers say... "Socrates is an evil-doer, and a curious person, who searches into things under the earth and in heaven, and he makes the worse appear the better cause; and he teaches the aforesaid doctrines to others." That is the nature of the accusation, and that is what you have seen yourselves in the comedy of Aristophanes.... **"** \- Socrates, speaking at his trial [9] 
> 
>   
>   
> Socrates was condemned by a difference of only 60 votes (30 would have thus changed the verdict[9]) out of the Athenian capital jury of 500 randomly selected adult men[10] many of whom grew up in the Athens of Aristophanes' heyday. Was the influence of Aristophanes' fiction (undeniable influence for how clearly it pervaded the preposterous charges against Socrates) enough that without his fiction, just _thirty_ citizens would have voted differently? We'll never know.... but would it be all that surprising?.

  
  
Perhaps one might ask that question again at the end of this prologue, when one has all the data.

 

For now, I'll go a step further and say that (not only in the time of Socrates, and not only among youth) fiction influences our perceptions, and thus, fiction is also _influencing_ reality - the precise extent and impact of which influence is the focus of _Cultivation Theory_. 

Why? 

This answer, to be properly given, is quite a bit longer. Especially as I'm not just going to give the summary and expect you to just believe it.

 

To a certain extent, the fact that fiction influences reality is something we already know, extremely well, at least where children are concerned. 

As parents (or people who surely know parents) we worry (or have heard worries) about the increasing violence, obscenity, profanity, substance abuse, and bigotry that our children are exposed to in fictional media - especially audiovisual - and games, and the extent to which these influences may shape the people they will become. 

Research shows that such parental worries exist with extremely good reason:  
  


> Children more exposed to violent imagery and bigotry - even in fiction - are more likely to be violent themselves, as young adults, and espouse bigotry along the lines that they have seen, than children with less exposure to the same stimuli.[11][12] 
> 
> Playing violent video games was demonstrated to increase both aggressive tendencies, and the expectation of aggression in a randomized study on adolescents, which also concluded that violent television media was likely to have a similar effect. [13]
> 
> Both third-to-fifth grade children and adolescents stereotype gender roles (cooking vs sports, homebody vs executive) and gender traits (empathy vs independence) along conventionally sexist lines at a rate that increases proportionally with the amount of TV viewing of programs showing such views[14][15] 

  
  
It might seem peculiar to say that as adults, fiction still potentially _influences_ each and every one of us, albeit to a lesser degree, however, do we not already _suspect_ as much to some extent?

As a thought experiment, many of us belong to some group or another that is frequently the victim of stereotypes in fictional media. LGBT individuals, Muslims, Jews, Native peoples of the Americas, Polytheists, Atheists, etc. 

If none of the above, there's at least a 50% chance that you, the reader, are a woman.  
How, then, do you feel when a new piece of TV comes out that stereotypes your group as sex-objects? As biologically inferior to the opposite sex, emotionally volatile, mentally unreliable, etc? 

If you are a man, how would you feel if a piece of TV media were produced stereotyping your group as rapists, wife-beaters, dirty, slovenly, etc? 

Or if you do fit into any of our earlier examples of other (comparatively rarer-than-sexes) groups, how do you feel when your group is stereotyped as 'unnatural perverts', 'miserly money-lovers', 'fanatical terrorists', 'lazy/stupid savages', 'Satanists', 'immoralists', or worse? 

Naturally you are offended - as well you should be - by such base lies, hate, and blatant bigotry, but if you were absolutely 100% certain that such fictional representations had no bearing at all on shaping reality for you and your forbearers, would it _hurt_ quite so much? 

It is _because_ at some level we know that these stereotypes affect the way that other people treat us, that we are so hurt and so worried by these portrayals, and history bears out that such concerns _are_ merited, as in the case of the 1915 racist film "Birth of a Nation" resurrecting a practically dead KKK.  


* * *

  
From another perspective, learning does not stop with childhood. Unlike for other species where evidence of learning is considered newsworthy by us (to be fair, we might be considering them less intelligent than they well my be), for us humans it is the rule. 

All our lives we learn and grow, from picking up new skills to repurposing entire areas of the brain to recover from catastrophic strokes and traumatic injuries. 

Is it any surprise, then, to think that our worldview (also something we learn) keeps changing even in adulthood, and that therefore, just like our adolescent selves, as adults, we just _might_ be susceptible to fictional influences?

Neurological plasticity of the brain aside, since a proper treatment would be beyond the scope of this discussion, let's get back to fiction, and what we can tell about our relation to it based on experiences we all share rather than specialist information.

* * *

To an extent, we know that fiction influences us _physiologically_. For example, the consumer of Hentai media is exposed to entirely fictional, and indeed, frequently _physically impossible_ , images, but the physiological reaction - the biochemical and cardiovascular mechanisms of arousal, and potentially its derivatives - is very much real, measurably so, in fact.

* * *

Corporations jostle and bid to have their products featured in television media. They _literally pay money_ to have their watch, vehicle, luxury item, or food, associated with a popular show, or better with fan-favorite characters, because this _product placement_ increases the number of real-life consumers who will buy the product, to an extent significant enough to more than make up for the funds literally given away. As we all know, if it doesn't generate tangible revenue, corporations do not massively engage in a behavior.  
  


> **"** Most recently, Heineken’s US division paid a reported $45 million for a product placement in 2012’s Skyfall....
> 
> The Journal of Management and Marketing Research (JMMR) estimates that total spending on product placements in entertainment reached about $7.55 billion in 2010, having compounded annually at 27.9% over the preceding five years. Meanwhile, the estimated value of those placements, in terms of audience reach, was nearly $14 billion, having grown at 18.4% on average.....
> 
> No medium is safe. Movies account for a relatively small slice of the product placement market. Television attracts close to 71.4% of all paid placements, and about 75% of all broadcast-network shows feature placements of some kind. Collectively, the top 10 TV shows of 2008 featured 29,823 product placements....  
>  ...brand awareness ...climb[s] to 43% when the placements are integrated into “emotionally engaging programs.” By associating a brand with an engaging show, likable character, or cool celebrity, product placements can benefit from the halo effect – or positive association – of that context....  
>  Consumers not only exhibit stronger recall and higher awareness of brands through product placements; they’re also more receptive to the messaging. Here, again, JMMR indicates that 31.2% of consumers who view product placements show interest in purchasing the products, and that interest can translate into cold, hard cash. **"** [16] and references therein, esp [17]. 

  
  
Simplistically? The research boils down to a few conclusions:  
1) Consumers align their attitudes toward products and brands with TV media characters' attitudes to the same products and brands. In addition, this process is driven by the consumers' attachment to the characters. [18][19]  
and,  
2) The audience pays attention to and accepts brand placement in movies/television and takes celebrities as portrayed on TV as references when shopping. [20]  
  
To be clear, now, product placement in fictional media is not targeted at those who would have already purchased the product because they needed/wanted it, and could afford it, and from whom revenue is already a given. Instead it is targeted at individuals who would _not_ have purchased the product otherwise. Of these, a significant portion do, subsequently purchase a product they did not need/want, or could not afford, completing the payoff phase of the investment. Significant - in terms of corporate revenue - as evidenced by numerous corporations' vested interest and participation in bidding for placement.

So as not to only speak in generalities regarding corporate behavior, and what the payoffs of product placement must be, let's look at some real-world figures:

> In the 1950s, the British Tea Bureau managed to increase US tea consumption by _17 million pounds_ each year by paying to place tea scenes in just over 80 movies over the course of 24 months.[21] 

  
  


> The iconic Reeses pieces that start the friendship between human boy and alien child in the 1982 film E.T.? A product placement by Hersheys that cost the candy-corp 1 million dollars to be included in the film, and _paid off massively_.  
>  **"** Hershey, maker of Reese’s Pieces, saw its profits increase by 65% during the run of Steven Spielberg’s landmark children’s film (at the time, the largest box office smash in history). **"** [16].  
>  **"** The movie was the #1 runaway hit of the year, and sales of Reese's Pieces jumped 70% in one month. Sixty days later, 800 cinemas that had not previously stocked the candy now had it in their concession stands.  
>  _That same year, 20th-Century Fox became the first major Hollywood studio to offer product placement in return for cash. Fees ranged from $10-50K for a placement per film._ **"** [22]  
> 

  
  


> **"** If you've seen Tom Cruise in Risky Business, you'll know he famously wore Ray-Ban sunglasses in the movie and on the classic 1983 film poster.  
>  Specifically, he wore Rayban Wayfarers.
> 
> Here's what you may not know: Wayfarers were developed in 1952. Sales had dropped to only 18,000 pairs by the 80s. Ray-Ban felt the glasses were _at the end of their lifecycle_ , and were about to drop them from the product line.
> 
> _But after Wayfarers were placed in Risky Business, sales that year jumped to 360,000 pairs, and by 1989, four million pairs were sold._
> 
> Product placement saved the product.
> 
> With that success, Ray-Ban began placing their sunglasses in about 160 films a year. **"** [21] 

  
  


> **"** Top Gun(1986): Once again, a partnership between Ray-Ban and a Tom Cruise flick paid off handsomely. Sales of the company’s Aviator sunglasses rose by 40% as a result of their use in the movie. **"** [16]. 
> 
> Also, the Air Force had a record number of recruits after Top Gun hit theaters[23][24], the US Navy set up booths outside theaters to recruit, and 90% of their recruits stated that they were there _because_ they had seen Top Gun [25], and the film was effectively subsidized by the US government and script-picked by the same, with an aim to presenting the military in the best light [25], which is a tactic very similar, indeed, to product-placement.

  
  


> **"** The Firm (1993): Tom Cruise worked his product-placement mojo once again, driving up sales of Red Stripe beer by 50% in the US in 30 days through a very blatant placement in the movie. **"** [16] 

  
  


> **"** Sideways (2004): The Paul Giamatti comedy caused a 150% sales increase for sponsor Blackstone Winery’s pinot noir (and a 2% drop in US sales of merlot, which Giamatti bashes in the film). **"** [21] 

  
  


> **"** But more than any other film, it was the Bond franchise that kicked product placement into the stratosphere.  
>  In the 1995 film, Goldeneye, BMW spent $3 million to replace Bond's famous Aston Martin with its new Z3. BMW saw a $240 million dollar lift in sales, sold twice the number of Z3s it had hoped for. **"** [21] **"** as a direct result of the placement. **"** [16] 

  
  
Thus, it can be safely concluded that fiction influences how we govern our _finances_. Considering that, practically speaking, nothing in life happens without money, and most of our stresses boil down to money, that's a _pretty big sign_ right there.

* * *

I'd claim that this is not, however, the end of the ways fiction influences up. Potentially, fictional media can affect us right down to the very core of our values and opinions, and even, through how we vote and poll, shape our society.

Shocking? Maybe. 

Is it really, though? 

We exhibit sorrow over the death of fictional characters and complain over fictional injustices. 

We experience measurable spikes in our blood pressure and fight-or-flight hormones when we watch a horror movie, even with _every physical sense continually telling us we are perfectly safe and whole_ and emotion, like it or not, is a mediator of how strongly a neural connection is forged. The stronger the emotion, the more indelible the association.

 

So far, so obvious. Despite this, one might argue that while fiction might influence our spending, our hormones, and our moods, surely on the big things, the _important_ things, reality must win out. One would think so, or at least hope so, but, let's take a case study.

 

Let's look at an activity considered immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional by all generally accepted standards of civilized society: _torture_. 

(The dubious expediency of it is another story entirely. We'll get there, very briefly, by necessity, though it's not really the point of this examination, and it's far too vast a topic to properly cover within it.)  
  


* * *

  
__

_In the next chapter: "Cultivation Theory", AKA: Does fiction matter?:_

__

__

3/3: A case-study of torture in audiovisual fiction, and its effects on real-world behaviors and attitudes.

.  


* * *

  


**Notes for the Chapter:**

> References for Ch. 3:
> 
>  
> 
> 1: James Rachels, "The Legacy of Socrates: Essays in Moral Philosophy" Columbia University Press, 2007. ISBN 0-231-13844-X, avail here: https://books.google.com/books?id=ek67okpYfyMC
> 
> 2: Anne Rooney, "The Story of Philosophy: From Ancient Greeks to Great Thinkers of Modern Times" Arcturus Publishing, 2014. ISBN 1-78212-995-2, avail here: https://books.google.com/books?id=KMKrBAAAQBAJ
> 
> 3: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/oct/17/socrates-philosopher-man-for-our-times
> 
> 4: Peter Adamson, "Philosophy in the Islamic World: A history of philosophy without any gaps, Volume 3" Oxford University Press, 2016. ISBN: 978-0199577491  
> synopsis here: https://aeon.co/ideas/arabic-translators-did-far-more-than-just-preserve-greek-philosophy
> 
> 5: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldcivilization/chapter/the-islamic-golden-age/
> 
> 6: https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/socrates
> 
> 7: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/clouds.html
> 
> 8: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html
> 
> 9: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html
> 
> 10: https://www.famous-trials.com/socrates/830-criminalprocedure
> 
> 11: Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through  
> imitation of aggressive models. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,  
> 63, 575-582.
> 
> 12: Eitle, D., & Turner, R. J. (2002). Exposure to community violence and young adult  
> crime: The effects of witnessing violence, traumatic victimization, and other  
> stressful life events. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 39, 214-237.
> 
> 13: Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2002). Violent video games and hostile expectations:  
> A test of the general aggression model. Personality and Social Psychology  
> Bulletin, 28, 1679-1686.
> 
>  
> 
> 14: Rothschild, N. (1984). Small group affiliation as a mediating factor in the cultivation process. In G. Melischek, K. E. Rosengren, & J. Stappers (Eds.), Cultural indicators: An international symposium  
> Vienna Austria: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wisenschaften.
> 
> 15: Morgan, M. (1982). Television and adolescents' sex-role stereotypes: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 43,947-955
> 
> 16: https://priceonomics.com/the-economics-of-product-placements/
> 
> 17: http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/10712.pdf
> 
> 18: Pokrywczynski, J. (2005). Product Placement in Movies: A Preliminary Test of an Argument for Involvement. American Academy of Advertising Conference Proceedings, Lubbock, 40-48. 
> 
> 19: Russell, C.A. & Stern, B.B. (2006). Consumers, Characters, and Products: A Balance Model of Sitcom Product Placement Effects. Journal of Advertising, Provo, 35(1), Spring, 7-22.
> 
> 20: Argan, M.; Velioglu, M.N. & Argan, M.T. (2007). Audience Attitudes Towards Product Placement in Movies: A Case from Turkey. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 11(1), March, 161-168.
> 
> 21: Kerry Segrave, "Product Placement in Hollywood Films: A History " McFarland Publishing 2004. ISBN 978-0786419043, avail here: books.google.com/books?id=Kw1vZcK73sIC
> 
> 22: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/undertheinfluence/show-me-the-money-the-world-of-product-placement-1.3046933
> 
> 23: http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,962933-1,00.html
> 
> 24: https://thenewsrep.com/103976/can-top-gun-2-repeat-the-originals-success-as-a-recruitment-tool/
> 
> 25: http://mentalfloss.com/article/63980/10-speedy-facts-about-top-gun  
> 
> 
> * * *
> 
>   
> 

**Author's Note:**

> This is potentially a dark one, folks. Not by creative choice but rather the necessary examination of real world terms and effects required to elucidate what the terms we use _mean_ , and what are the consequences of using them, fittingly and not. 
> 
> Terms, like genocide, carry great weight. If we are to pick up and swing anything so heavy, it is only responsible to weild it with cognizance of what we are doing. 
> 
> It has become evident over the iterations of this work and discussions that necessitated it, that we love to use dramatic words and hate to to examine them, for fear perhaps that such examination might disturb our peace. We like to take the time to swing the cudgel of labels but find it odious to do it with our eyes open. We may even resent examining our terms, perhaps fearing that we'll recognize choices to be made between our _conscience_ , our personal values, and the dramatic effect we can ride over both. Easier, then, to avoid ever seeing the choice, is it not?
> 
> From experience, yes, it is. But I publish this anyway, as much a reminder to myself as an artist, as a testament to my belief (however misplaced it seems some days) that we still have it in us to tread mindfully when we walk over the graves of those in the real world, for whom our dramatic terms were a terrible tragic reality.


End file.
